PulseBoard is evolving into an AI incident investigation platform
Quick builder update 👋
I've spent the last few weeks improving the part of monitoring that I think is actually the hardest:
Understanding incidents.
Monitoring tools already do a great job telling us something failed.
The difficult part is figuring out why.
Recent improvements include:
• GitHub integration for deployment and commit correlation
• AI-generated commit summaries that are cached and reused across future investigations
• Evidence-based incident analysis using monitoring data, historical incidents, deployment timing, and repository context
• A custom AI batching system with priority queues, retries, circuit breakers, and provider failover
• Vigil now explicitly says "Cause unknown from available data" whenever the evidence isn't strong enough.
One thing I've learned while building this:
A wrong AI answer during an outage is worse than admitting uncertainty.
I'd love to hear how other founders approach incident investigations today.
Marketing Budget Calculator
The calculator estimates your total marketing budget.
Comments (7)
This is exactly the lesson I keep relearning with FounderFlow. Early on our AI gave a clean confident answer for everything, felt great in a demo, then embarrassed me in real use when it was confidently wrong. Now everything gets a confidence label instead of one clean answer. Sounds like Vigil's "cause unknown from available data" is the same instinct. Good call building that in early instead of after users get burned.
Appreciate this, Stacy — and honestly, hearing that you went through the same thing makes me feel better about prioritizing honesty over confidence.
I think the temptation is always there to make AI sound smarter than it is. But with outages, a confidently wrong answer sends people down rabbit holes. That's worse than saying 'I don't know yet.'
Also really curious — what's your current debugging workflow when something breaks? Logs? CloudWatch? Commits? Would love to hear how FounderFlow handles it
Md_haseeb, honestly for actual code-level debugging I'm still in logs and commits like everyone else, that's not the layer FounderFlow works at. Where it helps me is more on the business side, flagging things like a deal going quiet or a reply that's overdue, not diagnosing why a server broke. But the honesty principle is the same either way. I'd rather my tool say 'not sure yet' than make something up just to sound useful.
Stacy — that makes total sense. You're right, logs and commits are still the default for code-level debugging, and that's exactly where PulseBoard fits in. The goal is to make that process faster — instead of digging through logs for 30 minutes, Vigil surfaces the most likely cause in seconds.
I'd love to get your take on PulseBoard if you're open to it. No pressure at all — just curious if a tool like this would actually help with your workflow.
Love watching PulseBoard evolve in real time, Haseeb. The conversation between you two about AI honesty is gold. "A wrong AI answer during an outage is worse than admitting uncertainty" applies to way more than just monitoring. Every AI product builder would benefit from honest AI diagnostics.
Olgathank you for the kind words/ It's really validating to hear that the 'honest AI' approach resonates beyond just monitoring. I think you're right — AI products across the board would benefit from being transparent about what they don't know.,
Md_haseeb, happy to give an honest take. I do not run infrastructure that needs uptime monitoring myself, so I am not the actual ICP for PulseBoard, but the underlying shift, surfacing a likely cause in seconds instead of a person digging through logs, is the same thing I am chasing with FounderFlow just on the business side instead of the code side. The one thing I would push on is making sure the confidence label is visible in the interface itself, not just implied by how the answer is worded, so a person glancing at it for two seconds knows whether to trust it or go verify. That distinction between fast and trustworthy is usually what decides whether people keep using an AI feature after the first time it misses.
Sign in to comment or upvote.